Having just viewed this film I am at a loss to see why it has been made. It is a good movie in itself but it lacked, for me, the emotional impact that the original carried. Also it does seem to be a straight remake of the original with very few important differences. I love this story and would rate the original as an 8.5, with this one a 7.5 simply because it adds nothing to the story except more blood and swearing.
383 Reviews
A Decent Remake, Correctly Cast Actors, Good Direction
svhot22 September 2017
"Papillon" is based on a true story of a French thief who becomes friends with one of his fellow prison mates, and together they plan an escape. It is the remake of the 1973 movie of the same name.
Hunnam, who plays the main protagonist, gives a brilliant performance. He is an intelligent actor who has given his own original touch to the role. He plays the role with a lot of realism and intensity. The surprise package of "Papillon" is Rami Malek, who plays Hunnam's friend. He has given an outstanding performance that challenges the one originally done by the great Dustin Hoffman.
The direction is effective and the original atmosphere of the 1973 flick has been captured well enough.
Hunnam, who plays the main protagonist, gives a brilliant performance. He is an intelligent actor who has given his own original touch to the role. He plays the role with a lot of realism and intensity. The surprise package of "Papillon" is Rami Malek, who plays Hunnam's friend. He has given an outstanding performance that challenges the one originally done by the great Dustin Hoffman.
The direction is effective and the original atmosphere of the 1973 flick has been captured well enough.
Still a great storyline
quark-8020829 August 2018
I love this remake. I loved the original.
The only things I have issue with on the remake are the exteriors portraying French Guiana. I know this remake was shot in Europe. You'd think with modern technology they could've made it look like Guiana as opposed to Europe.
The portrayal of the Salvation islands, especially Devils Island, is so historically incorrect.
I still love the storyline. Charlie and Remi were perfect in their roles.
In the original, you could feel their plight from jungle diseases and atmosphere. This one just looked like a dreary day in Serbia.
Not again
waskilywabbid15 August 2018
expected more...
ops-5253524 October 2018
I grew up with the book story and original film about papillon, and im sad to say,i was abit dissapointed. its not the acting,it good enough considering the premisses.
its the choice of locations, very cheap boat scenes, and the storytelling. all prisoners werre taken to the jungle on the mainland when arriving guyana,doesn show in the film, the isle are low terrained with a sloping coastline in the film its high cliffs and hills,they have mixed the nun and the indians by whom he was betrayed by and spent a year with.dega never met the indians!!!!!. very impotrant part of the book ! the lepra prisoner did not mingle with healthy prisoners or laymen, they had their own island on a river deep in the guyana jungle. akso when handling the boat,its clearly visible that there are return waves or echo waves around the boat, which tells me that the shooting has been done near a large quay or landing or in a wave pool. and where are all the socalled sharks everybody talks about---did you see a shark?????
there are too many actuall and historical flaws to make this a classic...
Enjoyable
dogmaticdogs2 September 2018
I never saw the original, so I cannot compare it to this movie. However, I found the acting above-average and the story interesting. Too many of us take our freedom for granted. These types of movies are great for keeping us grounded.
Mediocre
Bole_SLO27 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Papillon is among my all time favorite books. It is a book about perseverance, about never giving up, no matter what odds are staked against you.
I understand movie can not come close to the depth of a book but 1973 Papillon stays closer to the vibe of the book, albeit a bit goofy at times I still think that 1973 movie is better than 2017. Too much creative liberty (in both movies to be fair), horrible casting, bad scenography, some laughable flops like jumping into still Mediterranean ocean.
2017 Papillon is a movie tailored to the general population starting with a love story and adding Louis Vega relationship as a main point of the movie, while in book Louis Vega is just of of many characters that come and go. Gruesome, brutal unnecessary murder in the middle of the ocean and just whole movie is one big lost opportunity if not anywhere else in selecting which scenes from the book to display.
If you are unaware of the story, sure, watch it, otherwise very little substance to be found here.
I understand movie can not come close to the depth of a book but 1973 Papillon stays closer to the vibe of the book, albeit a bit goofy at times I still think that 1973 movie is better than 2017. Too much creative liberty (in both movies to be fair), horrible casting, bad scenography, some laughable flops like jumping into still Mediterranean ocean.
2017 Papillon is a movie tailored to the general population starting with a love story and adding Louis Vega relationship as a main point of the movie, while in book Louis Vega is just of of many characters that come and go. Gruesome, brutal unnecessary murder in the middle of the ocean and just whole movie is one big lost opportunity if not anywhere else in selecting which scenes from the book to display.
If you are unaware of the story, sure, watch it, otherwise very little substance to be found here.
Very touching
krismancini6 November 2018
This is a great film. I have not seen the original. Rami Malek does such a great job, he's really coming up in the acting world. I love him.
The story is a beautiful one. About friendship, loyalty, trust and courage. I had thoughts about how grateful I am to be living the life I currently live, after seeing what some people have endured through this movie.
Worth a watch that's for sure! 7/10
The story is a beautiful one. About friendship, loyalty, trust and courage. I had thoughts about how grateful I am to be living the life I currently live, after seeing what some people have endured through this movie.
Worth a watch that's for sure! 7/10
Watchable, but the original is still the best
eddie_baggins12 May 2019
There's no real reason for 1973's Papillon to have been remade, a sentiment that was seemingly found in most people considering how little fanfare this update got upon initial release, coming and going without so much of hint of notice but Michael Noer's re-imagining of the classic Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman prison break drama is a solid, if unremarkable attempt to breathe new life into the supposedly true life tale of 1930's convict and escape artist Henri "Papillon" Charrière.
Starring two of the most in-demand actors working today, in the form of Sons of Anarchy superstar Charlie Hunnam (who just can't catch a cinematic break) and Bohemian Rhapsody star, new Bond villain and Oscar winner Rami Malek, Papillon is a picturesque and solidly filmed epic that's lack of heart and energy often holds it back from achieving its goal of justifying its existence around its much beloved predecessor, that to this day holds up well as one of the quintessential incarceration/escape film's.
There's a lot of commitment on show from its leads, with Hunnam and Malek diving headfirst into their roles, even if Hunnam is the films real MVP, stripping back (and off) for his role as con artist turned wrongly convicted murderer Charrière.
While Malek is fine as psychically weak forger Louis Dega, of whom Charrière begins to protect in hopes he can finance an escape off the notorious French/Polynesian that the two criminals find themselves on in the harsh surrounds of the early 1930's, Hunnam's psychically and emotionally charged turn is deserving of a better film, a shame since his strong performance here will remain largely unnoticed, much like the similar low-key release of the very good Lost City of Z.
Despite Hunnam's turn and some great production qualities on stunning surrounds filmed across Eurpope, Papillon's big missed opportunity is in its creation of a strong friendship between Charrière and Dega. We never feel a strong connection between these two men, there's hints of a bond throughout but never a fully-fledged connection.
Unlike say a classic such as The Shawshank Redemption or even the original 1973 film, of which featured a great double act of comradery between McQueen and Hoffman, Papillon never nails its central and important friendship down, meaning we're always kept at arm's length to the plight of these two very different men, unable to be more than curiously engaged rather than totally captured by their dangerous undertakings.
Final Say -
Unnecessary and not close to matching the original, this modern take on the Papillon story is still perfectly watchable and features a turn by Charlie Hunnam that showcases why he can hopefully have a break out feature but overall you do wonder what the point of this whole exercise was when what we've had before is still more than adequate.
3 bundles of coconuts out of 5
Starring two of the most in-demand actors working today, in the form of Sons of Anarchy superstar Charlie Hunnam (who just can't catch a cinematic break) and Bohemian Rhapsody star, new Bond villain and Oscar winner Rami Malek, Papillon is a picturesque and solidly filmed epic that's lack of heart and energy often holds it back from achieving its goal of justifying its existence around its much beloved predecessor, that to this day holds up well as one of the quintessential incarceration/escape film's.
There's a lot of commitment on show from its leads, with Hunnam and Malek diving headfirst into their roles, even if Hunnam is the films real MVP, stripping back (and off) for his role as con artist turned wrongly convicted murderer Charrière.
While Malek is fine as psychically weak forger Louis Dega, of whom Charrière begins to protect in hopes he can finance an escape off the notorious French/Polynesian that the two criminals find themselves on in the harsh surrounds of the early 1930's, Hunnam's psychically and emotionally charged turn is deserving of a better film, a shame since his strong performance here will remain largely unnoticed, much like the similar low-key release of the very good Lost City of Z.
Despite Hunnam's turn and some great production qualities on stunning surrounds filmed across Eurpope, Papillon's big missed opportunity is in its creation of a strong friendship between Charrière and Dega. We never feel a strong connection between these two men, there's hints of a bond throughout but never a fully-fledged connection.
Unlike say a classic such as The Shawshank Redemption or even the original 1973 film, of which featured a great double act of comradery between McQueen and Hoffman, Papillon never nails its central and important friendship down, meaning we're always kept at arm's length to the plight of these two very different men, unable to be more than curiously engaged rather than totally captured by their dangerous undertakings.
Final Say -
Unnecessary and not close to matching the original, this modern take on the Papillon story is still perfectly watchable and features a turn by Charlie Hunnam that showcases why he can hopefully have a break out feature but overall you do wonder what the point of this whole exercise was when what we've had before is still more than adequate.
3 bundles of coconuts out of 5
Don't pay attention to the negative reviews
jiggyjet15 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The acting is superb and the storyline is consistently gripping from start to finish. Truly an enjoyable and intense film that must be watched! I fail to understand why IMDB and RT have given this such a negative score, at the same time the user reviews are probably an older generation and comparing it to the original. Remi Malek was very effective, particularly at the end, as his slow descent into madness is captured. The sheer brutality of what these prisoners went through and watching Pap escape at the ending jumping off the cliff and writing about it when he was innocent. Cool kids watch this awesome movie.
A film that induces the sense of solitary confinement
gradyharp13 June 2020
Henri "Papiilon" Charrière's 1969 autobiography hits the screen once again, this time written by Aaron Guzikowski and directed by Michael Noer, and while the acting is fine - Charlie Hunnam as wrongfully accused victim of a murder charge Papillon and Rami Malik as the counterfeiter Louis Dega - the film is thuddingly long.
While much of the film is brutal and realistic while depicting attempted escapes and the aura of prison, the important message of the value of friendship between Papillon and Dega does ring clearly. Far too much of the film focuses on the solitary confinement Papillon 'earns' from his escape attempts - a 2 year sentence then another five year sentence - and the dank and dark silent atmospheres results in audience participation: watching these passages is akin to actually being in solitary confinement!
The previous 1973 version of the true story - with Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman - moved more rapidly and was far better paced. Hunnam and Malek (and an assorted ensemble cast) definitely create the mood of the book, but the direction and editing are sluggish. The resulting concern for the audience is simply hoping that the next escape attempt works - to end the film.
While much of the film is brutal and realistic while depicting attempted escapes and the aura of prison, the important message of the value of friendship between Papillon and Dega does ring clearly. Far too much of the film focuses on the solitary confinement Papillon 'earns' from his escape attempts - a 2 year sentence then another five year sentence - and the dank and dark silent atmospheres results in audience participation: watching these passages is akin to actually being in solitary confinement!
The previous 1973 version of the true story - with Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman - moved more rapidly and was far better paced. Hunnam and Malek (and an assorted ensemble cast) definitely create the mood of the book, but the direction and editing are sluggish. The resulting concern for the audience is simply hoping that the next escape attempt works - to end the film.
poor attempt
bobpuls1 November 2018
Watch the Original Fil
jrbond-5762428 October 2018
This isn't a bad remake, but McQueen and Hoffman deliver such amazing performances in the original film, this film was always going to find that impossible to get close to. Whilst it's a reasonable stand-alone film and not a bad movie, you just find yourself comparing it to the original at every turn. A classic film, is a classic film and should really be left alone. I'd prefer directors and producers to look at new projects and new ideas. Rehashing movies that have already been brilliantly done, are just a waste of resources. I would advise anyone wanting to watch this movie, just watch the original.
A very moving story
Gordon-1118 April 2020
What an engrossing biographical film. It makes me so sad and disappointed that the prison system can treat people so badly. I really admire the prisoners who never lose hope and never give up. It is a very moving story.
a fair copy
SnoopyStyle11 November 2018
Henri "Papillon" Charrière (Charlie Hunnam) is a thief in 1931 Paris. He is framed for murder and sent to the French Guiana penal colony. He partners with weakling counterfeiter Louis Dega (Rami Malek) and attempts various escapes using Louis' money.
Papillon (73) is one of my favorite prison movies of all time. This is a fair redo and that's all this could be. The production is top level. The setting has the tropical desperation. It falls on the two leads to rise to the challenge. Rami Malek has plenty of Dega in him and the comparison to Dustin Hoffman is not unfavorable. Charlie Hunnam tries his best but he's no Steve McQueen. Few are and it's an unfair ask. This is fine but it doesn't compare to the original.
Papillon (73) is one of my favorite prison movies of all time. This is a fair redo and that's all this could be. The production is top level. The setting has the tropical desperation. It falls on the two leads to rise to the challenge. Rami Malek has plenty of Dega in him and the comparison to Dustin Hoffman is not unfavorable. Charlie Hunnam tries his best but he's no Steve McQueen. Few are and it's an unfair ask. This is fine but it doesn't compare to the original.
Darker than Prison Break, harder than Gulag
jeannefrancoise27 September 2018
Dear movie fellows, Papillon is the most wanted movie in my country. It is entering in the screenings so late, of course because so many factors, but we already knew the main story from the Internet. While it is coming to Indonesia, it is such a blessing. This movie is not a popular movie, not having typically Hollywood ending, but it brings the strong sense of humanism and how is the deep mind of prisoners, who had been captured unfairly. Papillon has simple main story about how prisoners had tried to escape, been captured, escaped again, and been captured again. The repetition plots in this movie is not boring, because we have Rami Malek's great acting, sad scenes of cinematography, and unbelievable shooting of dark side in Guyanna French prisoners' islands. Rami Malek is not the main actor, but he leads the whole action-reaction scenarios and I am pretty sure he will be great in his next moves in both Hollywood and European film industry. Papillon had big success in America, North America, and Europe and this year I am pretty sure it has more success in Asia, even though it is not popular movie, but is darker than Prison Break and harder than Gulag story. Much appreciation ahead for the Director, Producer, actors, cinematographer, and editor.
Worthy but pointless remake
davidwebb-2652826 September 2019
The original version was one of many excellent films from the seventies, truly one of cinema's greatest decades. You don't remake The Sting, The Godfather, Cabaret,The Exorcist, Deliverance or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest so why remake Papillon? The new version is honest and worthy but it's flat and it's bland and if it wasn't for the efforts of Hunnam and Malek in the two principle roles then the film would be barely watchable. They don't have a lot to work with script wise and the direction is all over the place.What did director Michael Noer do previously to earn a stab at this ? I am not sure . Some scenes seem to copy faithfully scenes from the original so you know what's coming before it happens but when they do depart from the original it doesn't work either,for example compare the opening of the original against that of this remake where you see a little background of events leading up to Papillon's arrest and imprisonment. It wasn't necessary to show it. This film appears to be based on the original film lock stock and barrel instead of maybe venturing into the pages of the two enormous novels that Charriere wrote about his years in captivity. You feel the level of suffering much more in the original than this remake and I felt the black and white footage and photos that end the film conveyed the horrors of being in captivity much more than the preceding two hours.After the cruelly underrated Lost City of Z and this Hunnam will continue to see his stock rise and Malek already has his Oscar .I'd like to remember this film as being part of these two actors journey in cinema rather than it being a good remake of a seventies classic which it falls way short of.
Outstanding film-making!
Top_Dawg_Critic25 October 2018
I never read the book or saw the original film, but this film was an outstanding production. I'm not a fan of long or slow paced films, but this one kept me captivated. The directing and cinematography were spot on. Rami Malek and Charlie Hunnam nailed their roles, and all other actors were perfectly cast and performed great. A great Bio-drama to watch. A well deserved 9/10 from me.
Well balanced film
michaeljtrubic7 September 2017
Our characters years of isolation and desolation were remarkably well balanced with action sequences
Excellent character design and performances
The young director director really had a flair for keeping the subject matter interesting and not overwhelming bleak as one would think
My best film on this first day of Tiff 2017
I think Rami Malek might get a best supporting Oscar nod for this role to go alongside his Emmy - he was brilliant
Dustin Hoffman should take note of this performance
Very good achievement in film.
Excellent character design and performances
The young director director really had a flair for keeping the subject matter interesting and not overwhelming bleak as one would think
My best film on this first day of Tiff 2017
I think Rami Malek might get a best supporting Oscar nod for this role to go alongside his Emmy - he was brilliant
Dustin Hoffman should take note of this performance
Very good achievement in film.
Too heavy, too good
deepakoffline4 September 2018
Don't believe the negative reviews. The movie and everything shown in it is too good. Really liked it. The whole film is a great, one time watch though. If you like real life stories then you will like this. The actors have done an outstanding job. Well done. The direction and everything else is top notch.
Wasted opportunity
scottsideasare17 November 2018
Amazing!
twelvechess25 August 2018
a gentler remake
ferguson-623 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Greetings again from the darkness. It seems like most every remake that comes around begs the question, "Why?" This is especially true when the film being remade is a favorite such as 1973's PAPILLON. The original was directed by Oscar winner Franklin J. Schaffner (PATTON, THE PLANET OF THE APES, THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL), and starred two legendary actors, Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. The screenplay was written by Dalton Trumbo and Lorenzo Semple Jr, and was based on the Henri Carriere books "Papillon" and "Banco". Mr. Carriere was, of course, the titular Papillon himself, and though the specifics of his stories have been met with skepticism over the years, he nonetheless delivered some fascinating material.
So why make the film again 45 years later? Well this is a kinder, gentler version and features two of today's most popular actors: Charlie Hunnam ("Sons of Anarchy") and Rami Malek ("Mr. Robot") as Papillon and Louis Dega, respectively. The screenplay from Aaron Guzikowski (PRISONERS) focuses more on the friendship and less on the brutal prison environment. Director Michael Noer (I'm admittedly unfamiliar with his previous work) delivers a movie that looks very good and works as an example of loyalty and bonding.
The film opens in 1931 Paris and we witness Papillon (so known because of the butterfly tattoo on his chest) doing what he does ... safecracking for a powerful mobster. He seems to be living the good life with his girlfriend (played by Eve Hewson, Bono's daughter) and they have plans to escape this life of crime - always an ominous sign in movies. Sure enough, he is framed for murder and sent to the penal colony in French Guiana. It's there that he meets Louis Dega (Malek), a master counterfeiter. Dega is a soft and slight man, and the wad of cash hidden in his nether-regions puts a target squarely on his back. So Papillon's brawn and need for cash to grease the wheels of his escape, and Dega's need for protection, make this the match made in heaven (or in this case, hell).
Being a man of eternal optimism, Papillon never loses faith that he will escape, even when the warden (a terrific Vorick van Wageningen from Fincher's THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO) explains that hope is his enemy. The years spent in solitary confinement rob Papillon of years and weight, but never hope. A final stint on Devil's Island reunites the two men who share a bond that only such harsh circumstances could build. Since we know that Henri Carriere wrote the manuscripts for the books in 1969, the ending is known before we start; however it's the telling of the story that allows us to come to know both Papillon and Dega.
This latest script does a better job of developing the friendship, as well as providing Papi's past and reason to live. The original nailed a man's commitment to surviving, while this one makes hope more of a philosophy. Lacking the magic of McQueen, Mr. Noer's version doesn't quite compare, but for those who have never seen the 1973 film, this one should prove quite engaging - even if we old-timers don't buy into the kinder/gentler approach.
So why make the film again 45 years later? Well this is a kinder, gentler version and features two of today's most popular actors: Charlie Hunnam ("Sons of Anarchy") and Rami Malek ("Mr. Robot") as Papillon and Louis Dega, respectively. The screenplay from Aaron Guzikowski (PRISONERS) focuses more on the friendship and less on the brutal prison environment. Director Michael Noer (I'm admittedly unfamiliar with his previous work) delivers a movie that looks very good and works as an example of loyalty and bonding.
The film opens in 1931 Paris and we witness Papillon (so known because of the butterfly tattoo on his chest) doing what he does ... safecracking for a powerful mobster. He seems to be living the good life with his girlfriend (played by Eve Hewson, Bono's daughter) and they have plans to escape this life of crime - always an ominous sign in movies. Sure enough, he is framed for murder and sent to the penal colony in French Guiana. It's there that he meets Louis Dega (Malek), a master counterfeiter. Dega is a soft and slight man, and the wad of cash hidden in his nether-regions puts a target squarely on his back. So Papillon's brawn and need for cash to grease the wheels of his escape, and Dega's need for protection, make this the match made in heaven (or in this case, hell).
Being a man of eternal optimism, Papillon never loses faith that he will escape, even when the warden (a terrific Vorick van Wageningen from Fincher's THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO) explains that hope is his enemy. The years spent in solitary confinement rob Papillon of years and weight, but never hope. A final stint on Devil's Island reunites the two men who share a bond that only such harsh circumstances could build. Since we know that Henri Carriere wrote the manuscripts for the books in 1969, the ending is known before we start; however it's the telling of the story that allows us to come to know both Papillon and Dega.
This latest script does a better job of developing the friendship, as well as providing Papi's past and reason to live. The original nailed a man's commitment to surviving, while this one makes hope more of a philosophy. Lacking the magic of McQueen, Mr. Noer's version doesn't quite compare, but for those who have never seen the 1973 film, this one should prove quite engaging - even if we old-timers don't buy into the kinder/gentler approach.
Unnecessary
kluseba5 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
There is no question that the original Papillon movie released almost forty-five years ago and starring star actors Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman is an amazing historical period drama and survival adventure movie. Based upon true events, it tells the story of a wrongfully convincted prisoner who tries to escape a French penal colony in French Guiana on three occasions. One has to question why such a movie would be remade in the first place. Even by today's standard, the original film's acting performances are very skilled, the exotic locations are breathtaking and the story about freedom and friendship is profound and timeless. Even though the remake isn't a terrible film, it's completely unnecessary. If you're not familiar with the topic, I would suggest watching the original film. I would even suggest reading Henri Charrière's Papillon and Banco novels which inspired both films. I would even recommend watching a documentary about French penal colonies before watching this remake. Watching this film should be your last option. However, it still remains an option, simply because the story is so good that it deserves to be watched or read or heard.
A remake should have the ambition to offer a different take on the events of the original movie and to improve it. There are very few of these elements to be found in this film. If compared to the original film, this remake shows us roughly fifteen minutes of the lead character's life before his wrongful conviction. We can see him cracking a safe, attending a party with members of an organized crime gang and spending time with his girlfriend. This exposition also shows a reason why Papillon would be framed for a murder he didn't commit. He kept some of the diamonds he stole for the gang to offer them to his girlfriend and was seen in the process of doing just that.
One element where the remake nearly matches the original film's quality is the acting. If compared to the unique Steve McQueen and the diversified Dustin Hoffman, Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek are obviously less experienced but they might deliver the best performances of their careers. Their friendship feels stronger and makes even more sense than in the original film. Charlie Hunnam convinces as resilient man who never gives up on his dream of freedom and comes surprisingly close to Steve McQueen's charismatic performance. Rami Malked does a solid job as scared intellectual and has great chemistry with Charlie Hunnam but can't match Dustin Hoffman's natural talent.
On all other levels, the remake is quite a letdown. The new version is about twenty minutes shorter than the original film but ironically feels much longer than the film released forty-five years ago that already had a few lengths. The events leading to the first escape attempt are stretched and the scenes in solitary confinement are played brilliantly but end up being quite repetitive. On the other side, important scenes have been cut or excluded in the remake. The men's haunting passage at a leper colony was completely cut from the remake. Papillon's life with a native tribe lasts for about five minutes in the remake even though he lived there for a long period of time, got married to two sisters and even impregnated them. The ending is quite abrupt in the remake as the director shows a brief scene of Papillon's return to France decades after his final escape without telling what happened in nearly three decades between both events, making the remake feel less concise and focused than the original film that ended with Papillon's succesful escape.
One element I would have liked to be mentioned is the fact that Henri Charrière's story was at least partially made up. He clearly wasn't as innocent and sympathetic as portrayed in the movie. Making his character a little bit more sinister would have been an intriguing addition if compared to the rather neutral original film. However, Papillon instead seems to be an even friendlier lead character than in the original film which is somewhat misplaced but goes along with typical Hollywood productions that fabricate heroic protagonists the audience wants to cheer for. In this case, this approach is too simplistic.
In the end, there are very few reasons to watch this remake. The exposition adds some depth to the lead character and the acting performances exceeded my expectations. However, the movie has more lengths than the original film, important scenes have been cut and the resolution feels misplaced. At the end of the day, this remake was quite unnecessary.
A remake should have the ambition to offer a different take on the events of the original movie and to improve it. There are very few of these elements to be found in this film. If compared to the original film, this remake shows us roughly fifteen minutes of the lead character's life before his wrongful conviction. We can see him cracking a safe, attending a party with members of an organized crime gang and spending time with his girlfriend. This exposition also shows a reason why Papillon would be framed for a murder he didn't commit. He kept some of the diamonds he stole for the gang to offer them to his girlfriend and was seen in the process of doing just that.
One element where the remake nearly matches the original film's quality is the acting. If compared to the unique Steve McQueen and the diversified Dustin Hoffman, Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek are obviously less experienced but they might deliver the best performances of their careers. Their friendship feels stronger and makes even more sense than in the original film. Charlie Hunnam convinces as resilient man who never gives up on his dream of freedom and comes surprisingly close to Steve McQueen's charismatic performance. Rami Malked does a solid job as scared intellectual and has great chemistry with Charlie Hunnam but can't match Dustin Hoffman's natural talent.
On all other levels, the remake is quite a letdown. The new version is about twenty minutes shorter than the original film but ironically feels much longer than the film released forty-five years ago that already had a few lengths. The events leading to the first escape attempt are stretched and the scenes in solitary confinement are played brilliantly but end up being quite repetitive. On the other side, important scenes have been cut or excluded in the remake. The men's haunting passage at a leper colony was completely cut from the remake. Papillon's life with a native tribe lasts for about five minutes in the remake even though he lived there for a long period of time, got married to two sisters and even impregnated them. The ending is quite abrupt in the remake as the director shows a brief scene of Papillon's return to France decades after his final escape without telling what happened in nearly three decades between both events, making the remake feel less concise and focused than the original film that ended with Papillon's succesful escape.
One element I would have liked to be mentioned is the fact that Henri Charrière's story was at least partially made up. He clearly wasn't as innocent and sympathetic as portrayed in the movie. Making his character a little bit more sinister would have been an intriguing addition if compared to the rather neutral original film. However, Papillon instead seems to be an even friendlier lead character than in the original film which is somewhat misplaced but goes along with typical Hollywood productions that fabricate heroic protagonists the audience wants to cheer for. In this case, this approach is too simplistic.
In the end, there are very few reasons to watch this remake. The exposition adds some depth to the lead character and the acting performances exceeded my expectations. However, the movie has more lengths than the original film, important scenes have been cut and the resolution feels misplaced. At the end of the day, this remake was quite unnecessary.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
